Fuck you, dickhead. Who’s talking about the STOCK MARKET? Obviously, a mope like you who gets his talking points from a white guy who dresses like Rick James probably doesn’t understand very much about economics, such things as productivity, leading indicators and lagging indicators.
Shrub has been in office for over TWO YEARS and has the economy improved? If you’re really wealthy, you bet’cher ass it has. Everyone else gets the shaft.
However, I’m sure an inbred dicklicker like you probably thinks that it was the best thing in the world to get a $300 tax rebate! I’ll bet you bought yourself a nice NASCAR cap and had a little money to buy your wife/cousin and inbred children WrestleMania XXXIV on pay-per-view!
SuperSteve-O: Bush had nothing to do with the dot-commers crashing, and that has played a major role in the economy going South. Furthermore, he didn’t tell Osama’s thugs to ram the World Trade Center, thereby causing the airlines major problems. You are obviousily not an admirer of Shrub, but some of our economic woes have nothing to do with him.
Incidentally, allow me to congratulate you on your tolerance.
To start out, Super-Steve-O, if you have any desire to ever make a fifth post on this board, you would be well advised to contact a moderator and request that that post be deleted. There are rules against personal insults in this forum – that’s what the Pit is for – and you’re well over the line IMHO.
That said, I have some strong comments to make, and they’re not relative to who should have won the 2000 election.
First, it’s an established fact that a large proportion of the country believes that G.W.Bush, or rather a group of his supporters, committed chicanery to give him the Presidency.
That’s not a Democratic spin – it’s fact. I give you in evidence the four pages of this thread and a couple dozen previous threads, all argued as hot and heavy as this one.
Whether it is the truth is immaterial. It’s believed to be so by a large number of people.
That means that there were serious problems with that election. What they were has been outlined at length here and elsewhere.
Not one person in any of these threads has called for Bush’s ouster (aside from the one discussing Ramsay Clark’s impeachment drive, a quite separate issue). He won the election by the rule of law.
The problem is that the system that led to him winning has enough loopholes in it to sail the entire U.S. Navy through four abreast.
It needs to be fixed.
I have not seen one Republican willing to admit that there were serious problems with the casting and counting of votes in Florida. I’d be very happy to see one with the strength and integrity of character to say that that was indeed the case.
Kniz, yes, Gore conceded – on the basis of news reports on the final polls. I will observe that the idea of John Ellis (whom I hadn’t known the facts about before this thread) leading the making of the call on the final polls casts some question on the appropriateness of his having made the concession in the first place.
Second, the recount issue brought up earlier was done precisely on the standards of Florida law, such as they were. For a person to exercise his or her legal rights is not something to be condemned, the last I heard. I found it intriguing in the Miami News analysis that if Bush had had the prescience to ask for a statewide recount on particular standards, he would have been declared the victor unquestionably.
There was a sardonic line some time ago that Election 2000 proves that every one vote counts – provided that it’s being cast in a Supreme Court conference. Whether or not you agree, the fact that it was indeed said, and the implications of it, ought to be a chilling thought.
This country has survived with presidents not chosen by the electorate before. When the populist from Tennessee wins the popular vote, but is cheated out of the Presidency by the Republican candidate, a former president’s son given to patriotic-sounding speeches and government by an oligarchy of well-to-do leaders, you can only expect a little protest from the rest of the country. But we did survive the election of 1824 – you realized I was talking about that, didn’t you?
BTW, the Republicans never elected another President after that. They regrouped as the Whigs, but their only successful candidates were two ex-generals. President Powell, anyone?
Bottom line: It matters to me less who should have won the Presidency in the last election than the ongoing divisiveness between people of both sides. And I attribute 95% of that to the outspoken group among the Republicans, who refuse to concede that there were any problems whatsoever with the election. Bush won; whether or not I am pleased with the result is immaterial. I live in a country where the rule of law, not of men, is supreme – and I’d like to keep it that way.
Peyote Coyote: As my football coach used to say, “It’s how you respond that’s important”. Dot-com implosion affected the Nasdaq. 9/11 affected airlines and tourism. I’ll grant you that.
BUT
The majority of economists I have read state that the BIGGEST impact on government funds has been the tax cut given by Bush to his buddies shortly after taking office. This affected the PROJECTED surplus, completely obliterated the Soc. Security funds, and caused deficits to be projected for at least 10 years WHEN NOT FIGURING IN A WAR WITH IRAQ.
Why is this important? Because, whether you loved him or hated him (most GOPers fall in the latter category), Clinton was able to pay down the national debt. This meant more funds were available for something other than interest payments, which then led to more monies being used for discretionary spending… and no deficits! It helps stave off a recession! And it also helps mitigate the tidal wave on entitlement spending in the future, which will really screw Gen Xers, Yers, and late-blooming Baby Boomers!
Meanwhile, what has this administration done to improve things either now or in the near future? All I hear is “tax cuts for the rich !” (which will take effect over TEN YEARS) and “The recession started under Clinton!” Come on, guys. Is this the best you can come up with?
Wait. On second thought, please don’t answer that.
Also, thanks for the kudos on my tolerance. I’ve worked hard to get it to that level.
Poly: I found myself in agreement with much of what you said. However, I believe the system is already in place; it’s just that the Supreme Court and, possibly, Congress choose to ignore it.
As I said above, I think the correct procedure is already outlined in the Constitution. When the vote cannot be accurately determined, the matter is supposed to be sent to the U.S. House of Representatives. IMO, the Supremes should have voted 9-0 to declare the Florida vote null and void, at least as regards the Presidency, and referred it to the House. I think Bush would have won, but the Republicans would have been forced to defend some of the shenanigans outlined in this thread.
A far bigger problem to my mind is the presence of someone like John Ellis in a managerial position in a newsroom. One of the reasons I decided to get out of journalism was the fact I saw too many reporters playing footsie with the politicos. A responsible network would not have let Ellis be in such a position on election night. Too many people, George Stephanoulous comes to mind, are moving far too easily between news rooms and political positions.
When I think back to the problems of Election 2000 I often recall the words of Robert Pastor, a professor of Political Science at Emory University (among other things ). In 2000 the professor organized the observation the elections of both the United States and Mexico. According to the standard the international observors came up with Mexico had a sucessful election but America did not. I bring this up not to gloat over the failed election process of America but instead because of the standard itself.
It was determined that “the minimal standard for a good successful election is one in which all of the parties and candidates could accept the process and the results expeditiously.” ( Cite. ) This is what Poly is getting at. The problem here is that to have viable elections it can’t just be the winners that are satisfied.
When a significant portion of the populace feels cheated then the election has failed. Republicans need to come to grips with the fact that there are legitimate concerns about how the election was conducted. Telling everyone else to just deal with it doesn’t work. The rest of us can’t deal with it alone. We all have to work together in order to fix things. If one side is satisfied with winning without considering the cost of victory then the sides can never come together. Until this is settled the elections are likely to just get dirtier.
Oh and if any care to attempt to defend the Electoral College in a new thread just hollar. I would be happy to point out the flaws in your reasoning. If others don’t beat me to it, that is.
Why should the amount of space I have around me make a difference in what my vote is worth? Why should someone in Montana have a bigger say in the election than someone in New York? (Also, as others pointed out, the real difference is not that large.)
Bush won because he got lucky. The people/bodies who had discretion in the post-election wrangling were his Florida campaign chair (a conflict of interest that, to this day, I cannot believe is even remotely legal), a Republican-dominated Florida legislature, and a right-leaning Supreme Court. He got the lucky roll, the bounce, and the wind blowing in his direction.
I will concede that Bush unquestionably won the election when Bush supporters concede that Gore would have won Florida had the will of the people been accurately measured and counted. Regardless of the practical possibility of assessing that, I don’t see how anyone can look at the Jews for Buchanan and other irregularities that disproportionally affected the Democrats and not arrive at that conclusion.
Two questions I have, though:
–Has anyone successfully dug up a single potential Bush voter from the Panhandle who failed to go to the polls after Gore was “declared the winner”? Wouldn’t a Gore voter be more likely to stay home after hearing such news than a Bush voter?
–Regarding the SCOTUS decision, and its business about this case not being used for future precedent: what is the legitimate basis for that? How do those who feel that the SCOTUS decision here was honest and above board explain that little addition? (I recognize that not all Bush supporters feel that it was completely honest, but many do.)
OK, how about the record numbers of loan defaults and bankruptcy filings.
Every economist, and I’m talking about the cream of the crop at the DOJ, says that the problems were caused by Clinton and that it take years for the policies to make a difference.
Cite? I’m not disputing your statement here precisely, just looking for proof of your assertion. And, ideally, at least one cite from those not employed by the government, for an objective view. (“DOJ”? Ashcroft’s hiring economists? Or what ought I to be reading that abbreviation as?)
There were serious problems with the casting and counting of votes in Florida. I think most of my Republican buddies would agree with that BTW. There are still serious problems with the casting and counting of votes in Florida. I’m beginning to think it might be Floridians. But, hey, I live in Tallahassee, so what do I know?
Well after all this time no one has cited a law broken or process not served. I will safely assume from here onward that any griping or sniping at our President regarding his legitimacy will be soley the result of people not liking the result of the election, and not because of any legal reason.
It looks like you are right about that!
BUT
Since there are so many upset people, we should not let either R or D sit as the Pres. - Just put in Harry Browne It is the only fair thing to do.
That isn’t the point. It should not have been up to Gore to decide which districts to re-count. When an election result is disputed, the only goal should be to determine the truth: who actually got the most votes. In the case of the FL election, if a recount of all of the votes had been done, Gore would have come out ahead. That’s what matters. I don’t understand a mindset that does not think it matters that Gore was actually the rightful winner in Florida.
Also, there is something very wrong with a system that can’t cope with the shenanigans and mistakes that occured in FL. (Shenanigan: wrongly tossing thousands of people off the voting roles based on a totally phoney list of supposed felons. Mistake [well maybe it was an honest mistake]: the badly designed West Palm Beach ballot that decieved thousands of people into unintentionally voting for Buchanan.
Sigh. Why do I even bother posting? elucidator, as usual, has elucidated things far better.
I remain surprised by the complacency of much of the citizenry. In the wake of this badly botched election, I expected something to be done to prevent a recurrence. Silly me.
Yes, I absolutely would have been equally upset if the situation had been reversed. What happened was wrong. Period. It would have been just as wrong if it had been reversed.
kniz, I disagree. My feeling is that Gore, and the Senate Democrats, let the country down by giving up too easily. The Senate Dems should have challenged the validity of the FL Electors.
And apparently, it was unapocryphal enough for the NAACP to win a lawsuit against Harris and the state of Florida for violating civil rights of black voters.
The facts are this: Florida employed a firm for 4 million dollars for develop a program to scrub the lists. It had a seriously high error rate (70%) when first tested prior to 1998, but its use was continued despite complaints in the 1998 election. It did such things as scrub people from the rolls if they had similar names as felons. In other words, it erred largely in the direction of false positives. It also differentially targeted African-Americans.
According to the company that made it: "DBT’s Bruder said that purge-list compilation “was as per specifications of the division of elections… They wanted false positives on search parameters to cast as broad a net as possible.”
Florida State Association of Supervisors of Elections sent a memo to the DOE complaining about these problems. Nothing was done. Harris was quoted as claiming that she had had concerns about the program when she came into office. Apparently not the sort of concerns that lead to action. Worse, the DOE from 1998 on apparently had more accurate information, but it for some reason chose not to it in the development of the purging program.
What we know: thousands of people were illegally purged.
What we don’t know: exactly how many of these people actually tried to vote and were wrongly turned away. There is no doubt that some were, because their accounts have been taken down. http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/vote2000/report/ch2.htm
What we do know is that they were disproportionately African-American and Democrat.
The company that did this, ChoicePoint (which is headed by a whos-who list of big name Republicans), is proud of itself,: “Given the outcome of our work in Florida,” says Fagan, “and with a new president in place, we think our services will expand across the country.” http://archive.salon.com/politics/feature/2000/12/04/voter_file/print.html
I can’t wait! I should also note that Choice Point received a contract worth 4.3 million: replacing a firm that had been doing the work for a contract of 5,700, and from all acounts, was doing a much better job. It wasn’t as well connected though.
Greg Palast of the BBC also has a few more interesting stories: http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=122&row=1
One includes a man who was stripped from the roles because he had the temerity to commit a felony way in 2007. A felon and a time traveler to boot!
In regards to the 325 people stripped for being convicted of crimes in the future, Palast also notes: “Rather than release this whacky data to skeptical counties, Janet Mudrow, state liaison to DBT, suggested that “blanks would be preferable in these cases.” (Harper’s counted 4,917 blank conviction dates.) The one county that checked each of the 694 names on its local list could verify only 34 as actual felony convicts. Some counties defied Harris’ directives; Madison County’s elections supervisor Linda Howell refused the purge list after she found her own name on it."
As far as regular differential disenfranchisement, The USCivil Rights Commision found
“Despite the closeness of the election, it was widespread voter disenfranchisement, not the dead-heat contest, that was the extraordinary feature in the Florida election. The disenfranchisement was not isolated or episodic. And state officials failed to fulfill their duties in a manner that would prevent this disenfranchisement.”
They also claimed that African-Americans were 10 times more likely to be disenfranchised http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/vote2000/report/ch9.htm
It is the only fair thing to do.